Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-5667-11T1
02-28-2014
NEW JERSEY REAL ESTATE COMMISSION, Claimant-Respondent, v. ESTRELLA PIEMONTESE, Respondent-Appellant.
Estrella Piemontese, appellant pro se. John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; William B. Puskas, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Reisner and Ostrer.
On appeal from the New Jersey Real Estate Commission.
Estrella Piemontese, appellant pro se.
John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; William B. Puskas, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Estrella Piemontese appeals from the Real Estate Commission's June 4, 2012 order and decision, after our remand. N.J. Real Estate Comm'n v. Piemontese, No. A-2561-09 (App. Div. May 12, 2011) (Piemontese I). In 2009, the Commission revoked Piemontese's broker license for ten years, and imposed a $25,000 penalty, as the sanction for several violations of the Real Estate Brokers and Salespersons Act, N.J.S.A. 45:15-1 to -29.5, and Commission regulations. The violations arose out of Piemontese's non-compliance with regulations governing the maintenance of an office; and her various actions in 2004 in connection with the sale of a residential property that the buyers believed was suitable for use as a "mother/daughter dwelling" when it was not a permitted use. The Commission imposed a single sanction for the combined violations.
We affirmed most of the Commission's findings of violations. Piemontese I, supra, slip op. at 8. However, we reversed the Commission's conclusion that Piemontese had affirmatively misrepresented the permitted use of the property to a mortgage lender, and that she failed to disclose the source of her compensation. Id. at 9. In view of our partial reversal of the underlying violations, we directed the Commission to reconsider the total amount of the monetary penalty and the length of the license suspension to be imposed for the remaining violations. Id. at 15 (citing Maple Hill Farms, Inc. v. Div. of N.J. Real Estate Comm'n, 67 N.J. Super. 223, 233-34 (App. Div. 1961)). We also asked the Commission to reconsider its finding that Piemontese acted in bad faith as a factor in its penalty, inasmuch as the Commission did not find that Piemontese knowingly or willfully made false statements, or intended that the buyers detrimentally rely on them. Id. at 15-16.
After hearing argument on November 15, 2011, the Commission concluded that Piemontese did not act in bad faith, but did act incompetently and in a manner unworthy of a licensee. The Commission reduced Piemontese's fine to $15,000, and her license revocation period to seven years. The Commission reasoned that the sanctions were necessary "to address the gravity of the five very serious violations committed by Respondent Piemontese that the Appellate Division affirmed. These violations of the real estate laws and regulations were not only egregious but caused significant financial hardship for the victim."
On appeal, Piemontese asks us to consider the following point:
The New Jersey Real Estate Commission's failure to submit to the Appellant [sic] Division pertinent information and documentation pertaining to this matter hindered the decision making of the Court resulting in Appellant's real estate license revocation and the issuance of unfair fines and penalties.
Having reviewed Piemontese's argument in light of the record and applicable legal principles, we affirm.
In essence, Piemontese does not address, or assert error, in the Commission's consideration on remand of an appropriate penalty. Instead, she attempts to relitigate the violations we affirmed. However, she is bound by our initial decision. See Khoudary v. Salem Cnty. Bd. of Soc. Servs., 281 N.J. Super. 571, 575 (App. Div. 1995) (stating that a party may not "reargue the merits of what we decided in the first appeal" and was "precluded from relitigating any issues on the remand other than the specific purpose of the remand").
Piemontese challenges the Commission's decision to proceed with its 2009 hearing in her absence. We noted in our prior opinion that Piemontese did not complain of that in her appeal. Piemontese I, supra, slip op. at 9 n.3. Piemontese also highlights that the rider to the sale contract obliged the seller to obtain a certificate of occupancy, which she argues relieved her of responsibility to do so. However, as we noted in our initial decision, Piemontese did not include that rider in the record, so we did not consider it. Id. at 5 n.1.
Piemontese also highlights some seventy-two pages of discovery that she obtained from the Commission in October 2012, after its decision on remand. But, we denied her motion to supplement the record. These documents were not presented to the Commission.
Any further discussion is not warranted in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION